Re: [ga] Negative outreach norms, board claims regarding consensus in favor of "reform" efforts

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2002-05-08 20:21:55 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote:

>>Of these, the first option (a different private entity) seems to 
>>be the one least likely.

>I wish I agreed, but I don't. The US is very sensitive to EU and 
>other concerns and wishes to have maximum distance from its 
>'failsafe' role in running the DNS.  It wants the private solution 
>very badly.

Your argument doesn't justify the conclusion: All you say is that  
there will be continued private-sector control.  However, you fail  
to point out what incentive the players involved (which include the  
USG!) have to set up a DIFFERENT private-sector entity for 
exercising that control, when they can just as well reform the 
existing one.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html